















Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
An outline of international perspectives on internet legislation, focusing on data protection and us privacy laws. Topics include the data protection act 1998, us privacy laws, government access to data, and relevant statutes such as the regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 and the us patriot act 2001. It also covers international policing and encryption.
Typology: Slides
1 / 23
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
US Privacy Laws
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 US PATRIOT Act 2001 Data Retention
Copyright Infringement Deep Linking, Brands and other web-page issues
Phishing Politics International Policing
differs from US “privacy protection” landscape
exemptions for “private use”, “basic business purposes” (but not CCTV) : see website for details
privacy of mail (1782, 1825, 1877) privacy of telegrams (state laws in the 1880s) privacy of Census (1919) Bank Secrecy Act 1970 (requires records kept!) Privacy Act 1974 (regulates the Government) Cable Communications Policy Act 1984 (viewing data) Video Privacy Protection Act 1988 (purchase/rentals) Telephone Consumer Protection Act 1991 (DNC in 2003) Driver’s Privacy Protection Act 1994 (license data)
introduced after Enron/WorldCom/etc scandals
must protect personal data if disclosed then must tell individuals involved
early on had a dramatic impact, now (100 million disclosures later) becoming part of the landscape no central reporting (so hard to track numbers) some disclosures look like junk mail!
can be applied to messages or to stored data you can supply the key instead if you claim to have lost or forgotten the key or password, prosecution must prove otherwise
notice must be signed by Chief Constable notice can only be served at top level of company reasoning must be reported to commissioner
electronic signatures “shall be admissible in evidence” creates power to modify legislation for the purposes of authorising or facilitating the use of electronic communications or electronic storage not as relevant, in practice, as people in the “dot com bubble” thought it would be. Most systems continue to use contract law to bind people to commitments.
only applies to you if Home Office sends you a notice notices supposed to be sent to all (public) CSPs
remote seller must identify themselves details of contract must be delivered (email is OK) right to cancel (unless service already delivered) contract VOID if conditions not met
restates much of the above online selling and advertising is subject to UK law if you are established in the UK – whoever you sell to significant complexities if selling to foreign consumers if you specifically marketed to them
DMCA is very prescriptive about take-down and put-back notices
hoster immune until they have “actual knowledge” related immunities are “mere conduit” and “cacheing”
it is envisaged that only a court will grant access to customer details (or of course a police officer can serve RIP paperwork) similar initiatives elsewhere (France: Hadopi), but not yet? in US
1996 Shetland Times v Shetland News (UK) settled 1997 TicketMaster v Microsoft (US) settled 2000 TicketMaster v tickets.com (US) allowed [since clear] 2006 naukri.com v bixee.com (India) injunction 2006 HOME v OFiR (Denmark) allowed [not a database] 2006 SFX motor sports v supercrosslive (Texas) injunction 2007 Copiepresse Press v Google (Belgium) forbidden
Uniform Dispute Resolution Protocol for brand owners mikerowesoft.com settled, microsuck.com survived… US: 1999: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act US: 2003: Truth in Domain Names Act
NB Google has its own rules as well
especially Obama’s fundraising (but Howard Dean did it first)
defamation, incitement, anti-terror laws
need to know identity if amount over £ need to report if over £5000 (or even £1000) need to identify “permissible donors” raising money for terrorism forbidden (!)